[CCWG-Accountability] Regarding how bylaw changes are made

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for this information, I will then suggest that this WG determine if
those steps will indeed be appropriate for us especially since WS1 is more
of a perquisite to transition. One would expect some adjustments on timing
and wording rights to be made in the process, also board voting rights in
this particular process may need to be agreed upon. It will not be
encouraging to have  implementation stopped on the basis of no 2/3 board
majority....time utilization is an important factor in all these. So the
earlier we involve board (without having them dictate for us) the better.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Jan 2015 04:55, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello Seun,
>
> >>  I think writing to board to know how it will treat the WG outcome
> especially when some of it's implementations will require by-law
> modifications that further involve the ICANN community in decision making
> process may be useful.
>
> In terms of the process for making bylaws changes, changes have previously
> been made to accommodate recommendations from the review teams associated
> with the work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT)
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/atrt-2012-02-25-en .
>
> Any archive of all previous versions of the bylaws is available here:
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/archive-bc-2012-02-25-en
>
> Based on our current practice I would expect the process to be as follows:
>
> - Board accepts recommendations from the CCWG
>
> - General Counsel's office prepares specific text to change in the bylaws
>
> - proposed bylaws changes are put out for public comment  (45 days)
>
> - Board then votes on the bylaws amendments  - a 2/3 majority of the Board
> is required to make a bylaw change
>
> If there is significant community comments against the proposed bylaws
> language - then a new draft of the bylaws would be put out for public
> comment that is consistent with the recommendations from the CCWG.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150101/3c738701/attachment.html>